|
|
|
Nazism As Overstated Premise of White Nationalism and False Either/Or
Working hypotheses will be advanced as to why these logical fallacies are being adopted despite their apparent obviousness; how they are mistaken; and remedies will be proposed in cooperative nationalism. Statements will be set out as hypotheses to allow for efficient positioning of historical viewpoints as they emerge practical in argumentative service of cooperative European nationalism. In addition to the practical efficiency of hypotheses for unburdening detail, the modesty of unfinished claims is meant to facilitate participation from the commentariat to elaborate, correct and amend the hypotheses - i.e., to make optimal use of Majority Rights discussion format. * Note: in comment number 2, I erred in grammatical present tense when discussing Brelsau (Wroclaw). Which, according to the Treaty of Versailles and through World War II, remained German. There would have been no good argument to that point in time for its not being German.
Introduction – Sought premise, significant obstacle, causes, proposed remedy. The sought premise is a cooperative alliance of sovereign indigenous European nations/nationals, in Europe and worldwide A significant obstacle is the overstated premise of Hitler and Nazism as being representative of White Nationalism and as a false either/or – either Hitler and Nazism or the international Jew. It is disturbingly easy to find counter-points to the view that the Nazis were simply right, any misdeeds of theirs simply fabrication and that they were merely victims.
An overview of the hypothesized cause of the problem and remedy: The logical fallacies of overstated premise and false either/or are adopted by those not seeing that European national perspectives which were conceived of by the Nazis as being against Germany were not necessarily against them then and are not now - and if persons in these positions could see that, they could take the balance and flexibility of the alternative perspective (the lack of which is expressed in their overcompensation and false either/or); by sharing in the analogy and gain in perspective, see the legitimacy and innocence at the core of their own nationalism; as well as sense in the cooperative function that this additional flexibility affords in mutual defense of native Europeans wherever necessary. That is the hope in writing this article, but there is risk.
The enunciation here is that just as with all White Nationalisms, German Nationalism is more than valid, it is proper and necessary. However, by contrast, Nazism is not only an overstated premise as it might be proposed to represent an overlapping position of White Nationalisms, it is even an overstated premise as it would be proposed to represent German Nationalism - viz., Nazism is more like German Imperialism. Moreover, it is often proposed among White Nationalists as an either/or - either Nazism or the international Jew - and this is a significantly false either/or: it is counter-productive and unnecessary to cop to the charge of “neo-Nazi;” let alone to insist upon reverence, to follow its book of rules verbatim and adopt its regalia as emblematic of White/ European Nationalisms. I will endeavor to set-out this platform and argumentation for those White/European Nationalists who might see deliberate association with Nazi identification as pejorative and unnecessary as they would, therefore, not mind dropping it in favor of a cooperative alliance between all White/European nationals. Nazism was a thing of the past, it had its historical circumstances, its strong points and reasons, but was an overcompensation not necessary to associate with and embrace now. To me, that is fairly obvious and I am sure it is obvious to others as well. However then, why do many prominent White Nationalists over-sympathize, if not identify quite flamboyantly with Nazism? These are the central questions and problems that I will address and for which I will pursue remedy here. I suppose that in a very real sense that both Jewish elites and faithful Nazis might actually like to believe in the necessity of an either/or and thus overstate their premises - I will endeavor the argument that that is not necessary, identify some of the key reasons why it may be thought to be necessary, while proposing remedy to this overstated premise and false either/or.
My relatives were moved and lost property in the former Eastern extremes of what was Polish territory. That is not a misfortune worth grievance now. Nor is Germans having been moved from Eastward thrusts of their former habitation. By analogy, it is not and would not be cause for grievance for Jews to be recognized as non-European and transferred out of Europe along with other non-Europeans. Some may not be seeing this because their position increases the efficiency, the logical force of over-identifying with the Nazi point of view. Causes of the overstated premise and false either/or: Overlapping and underlapping perspectives with the Nazi wrath. The demographic hegemony of those nations and people who were either completely aligned (overlap) with the Nazi point of view or at least not in the path of its wrath (underlap) facilitates currency through lessened obstruction to its way of talking and gives it a backing that gains additional traction by those seeking power, popular assent and perhaps profit. It can also have interest to those seeking identitarian difference, e.g. rebellion by brooking the bad guy image. It will also be promoted by Jewish interests to stigmatize, divide and conquer White organizational efforts. For example, those not directly in the path of Nazi wrath would be German or Irish or Irish and German American – the largest White demographics of America by far; witnessing the catastrophe of Jewish imposed liberalism, along with the stress and the guilt trips overlapping (as in the case of Germans) or underlapping their concerns (as in the case of Irish) they may not see from their perspective a way out other than overcompensating, rebelliously strict identification in over-agreement with the Nazi point of view; the maintenance of that stigmatized identity; which then in turn, calls for arbitrary, one-sided historical punctuation. It is also likely to be the case that as these large, overlapping and underlapping demographics can provide currency to this way of talking that it will gain traction through pandering by those looking for popular assent, power or profit; or it may appeal to those rebelling to identitarian difference from victim to victimizer role. Of course it will also be advanced by Jews looking to stigmatize, divide and conquer White/ European nationalist organization. While the nationalism of some Irishmen may have a view in resentment of the English to include resentment of their position in World War 2, it would of course, be natural recourse for some English, when looking at the current situation to ask, what did we get involved in that war for? For other nations, however, Hitler was offering an even less appealing choice. While additional National examples can and will be provided, we may suffice with Belarus, Ukraine and Poland to begin: I will focus mostly on Poland because it is the example that I know best and probably most central to the Nationalist aspect of World War II’s conflict. By looking at the Nationalism of these three countries we can see that they all had significant degrees of anti-semitism and that each were not only resistant to Russian expansion over their territories, but had fought it throughout history, including times relevantly prior to World War II. These facts refute arguments that the transfer agreement could not have been negotiated between the European nations. They also refute the argument that Germany was exposed to Russian invasion from the east. Hence, speculation about plans of Soviet invasion of Germany (hence, e.g., the “necessity” of Barbarossa) post Molotov-Ribbentrop are after the fact, having forgone the possibility of negotiating alignment of Eastern European countries against Soviet invasion. These negotiations would have been difficult, but they would not have been more difficult and in all likelihood, enormously less destructive than the Nazi policy that was actually pursued. The greatest obstacle to such negotiative strategy was Hitler: his worldview shaped by the militaristic means (as opposed to statesmanship) of World War I, and an intractable admiration for Germany’s historical/military conquests (e.g. for the imperialism of Friedrich The Great, the militarism of The Teutonic Knights) rendered mass death and militaristic means a matter of course; finally, of course, with that view, he defined his in-group primarily Germanic, while Slavics were looked upon as hostile/inferior outsiders - a view further torqued in rage by the Treaty of Versailles. Thus, all 20/20 hindsight has to be qualified with that IF. IF Germany had a reasonable leader at that time, national matters may have been negotiated amicably. As White Nationalists engage in 20/20 hindsight, we might agree that it can be perfect. As such, we might refrain from laying guilt trips on this generation of Axis descendants and we may kindly request that they and their sympathizers refrain from laying guilt trips on those descended of Allied nations. We may even show understanding for those who did not fully appreciate the J.Q. since from a casual point of view of our interests, Jews make no sense. Hindsight is 20/20 and thus, lets look from the worldview where it is, and was NOT necessary for European nations to fight one another. It is generally agreed that The Treaty of Versailles was overly punitive. That is true economically, but not very true territorially. I will get to that in a minute. First, it is necessary to address a very important point here: we cannot allow for portrayals of Germans or Nazis as ex-nihlo evil; but neither can we allow for their staunch advocates to portray The Allies as ex-nihlo evil either. While our 20/20 hindsight shows that The Treaty of Versailles went overboard, the utter rage and indignation of those who fought and lost millions against German militarism bears consideration as well. Nazi apologists do not often mention the fact of antecedent events - such as the rape of Kalisz and Leuven circa WWI, the destruction of Warsaw, Kiev and Minsk in WWII - which context their own casualties as having been in response. One might proceed infinitely in setting the frame of the context; but with Jews and Nazis being rather uncharitable in recognition of these contextual, antecedent frames, we have to undergo the tedium. With that, while we might have sympathy for the Germans for the Treaty of Versailles, we need not fail to recognize that they over-corrected in World War II. Thus, we might sympathize with their indignation with Jews and advise this generation to unburden themselves of guilt trips by the analogy that we all know what it is like to be provoked to the point of lashing-out, for our biology to convulse and wretch in attempting to throw-off a virus. Revising the whether or not or how and the how many of Jews were killed is not especially important from a non-Nazi point of view, nor does it need to be especially important from a German point of view. The more productive (and safe route - because it is more a matter of honest inquiry from the onset rather than trying to fit a rhetoric) is to ask why there was such animus for the Jews and point to illustrations such as the Holodomer, the Bolshevik atrocities, the destruction of the German economy and so on. But as far as distortions and mechanizations of holocostianity, present day Germans and Europeans have no part in what happened – whether particularly accurate or not, it is not now. Cooler heads prevailing, only a fool would say that we would not have been better off negotiating the transfer agreement, along with prosecution of the most culpable Jewish elite, if we could have. Continuing with our 20/20 hindsight then, I would like to look at another aspect of the Treaty of Versailles, one which was not far off the mark, in fact, quite close to appropriate and fair - on the border with Germany (whereas on Poland’s Eastern border regions, more land and cities probably should have been enforced clearly to Poland’s Eastern neighbors). To see the approximate fairness of the boundaries as they have resulted to date, it is necessary to consider the Polish nationalist perspective.
Josef Pilsudski was an exemplary Polish Nationalist of the times - despite his circumstantial pragmatism (which would not only allow Jews into the state, but encourage their assimilation) he was nevertheless ideological enough to consider his arch enemy to be Felix Dzerzhinsky, Jewish Bolshevik head of the Soviet secret police. That is, Pilsudski’s Polish nationalism would ultimately place him at odds not only with the Soviets, but also Jewish interests – as Jews simply were not Polish nationalists. Roman Dmowski was Pilsudski’s chief Polish nationalist opponent. Purged of Dmowski’s social Darwinism and adding a modicum of socialism from Pilsudski’s program, Dmowski’s platform would have ultimately been the more practical version of Polish nationalism, as it sought a strictly homogeneous population while maintaining a prescient anti-semitism. Nevertheless, my contention is that Pilsudski’s situational, federalist, pragmatism - which would unite diverse peoples under Polish nationalism - would inevitably be confronted with the unassimilability of Jewish interests. Giving Pilsudski’s pragmatism its due, he led an amazing upset defeat of the Red Army at Warsaw, when the Red Army was in fact, on its way to Berlin. This puts the lie to the argument that Nazi Germany was without recourse in its vulnerability against Russia to its East. Unless, of course, they planned to stab Poland along with Belarus and Ukraine in the back, which they did, despite these countries having fiercely anti-Soviet positions (and plenty of anti-Semitism). The Soviets may not have been at full strength when Pilsudski defeated them. Poland may have been seen as arrogant by the Nazis. But in truth, the Poles did not believe they could defeat the Nazis alone; they hoped for help from the French and British. At any rate, their being “arrogant, overconfident and overly brave” are non-sequiturs - Nazi invasion of Poland does not follow in justification. As to the extent that Poland participated in “the rape of Czechoslovakia” (1938), and which according to Buchanan signaled the national guilt of Poland, it is in truth barely worth mentioning; I will leave that for the comments. Nevertheless, Pilsudski was not perfect either and waged campaigns to the East in defiance of The Treaty of Versailles.
From the view of hindsight, and perhaps only with that benefit, Pilsudski may have elected not to wage battle to retain Vilnius and L’viv as Polish. In the case of Vilnius (Pilsudski’s city of birth; my grandfather’s as well), however, he may have had some additional encouragement from the Belarusians (the original Lithuanians) as they saw him as fighting the Soviets for the city and possibly bringing it, their ancient capital, back into their fold eventually by means of this fight. In addition, he was perhaps mistaken not to give The Belarusians their sovereignty to fight the Soviets more of and for their own accord. L’viv would have been still more difficult for the Poles to relinquish entirely. The Poles built that city and put a lot into it. More than that, there was the harrowing complication of atrocities committed between the Poles and Ukrainians in surrounding villages, which would have made not fighting near impossible. Perhaps L’viv should have been negotiated to be some sort of neutral city; but with the benefit of hindsight on that conflict between historical input and logistics, logistics should be favored, as it extends a bit too far into rightfully Ukrainian populated lands.
Now then, lets take the analogy of the fact that Poles were moved from these places after World War II and the fact that neither I nor anybody I know begrudges them to the present day Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. Though it is very hard and would have been very hard, especially at the time, to lose a place such as L’viv, a statesmen accepts this for the logistics of Nationalist concordance - particularly with the vantage of 20/20 hindsight. While Germany/Prussia was not the vast monstrosity that engulfed half of Poland as it had been when Poland was wiped off the map, it was still enormous after the Treaty of Versailles; much larger than it is today. A statesman might have looked at the matter more deeply and with more perspective than that of the imperialist aims of say, Friedrich the Great - who looked upon the Poles as unworthy of governing their own land, who sought economic means to exploit them (in such a manner that Goldman Sachs might admire), who, with the idea of German superiority, would seek to deprive Poles even of one of their foundational cities - Poznan.
German imperialism sought aggrandizement of Polish lands and imposed harsh policies of Germanicization upon them through tracts of history. In this very area, in Wrzesnia, a famous (for Poles) school strike was initiated in the early 1900’s when Polish school children were beaten by Prussian teachers for not speaking German. Poles resisted Germanicization and fought against it, holding together as a people even when they did not exist as a nation on the map for over a hundred years, but only in interpersonal agreement, language and patriotic narrative. That they persevered so, is one reason why they are warranted in having their nation – despite the fact that Friedrich the Great and his admirer to the death, Hitler, would have been quite comfortable with Poland not existing.
After the Prussians took Poznan in 1793, three generations of Germans lived there. It would have been understandably bewildering, dismaying for a generation born when there was nobody alive who could remember its not being a German city - to then have the city restored to Poland through a Polish military uprising which was then confirmed by The Treaty of Versailles. Nevertheless, hard decision though it was imposed by The Treaty of Versailles, it was a correct in historical justice and logistics.
But hard as these losses were to Germany, embarrassing perhaps even, to have Thorn sat in the lap of Poland (as L’viv might be for Ukrainians), a statesman would recognize them as logistically valid concessions as they extended far into Polish lands and would make access to the sea circuitous and precarious. Former German bastions such as these and Malbork had come with Prussian and then Teutonic violence and cruelty to such an extent that it was denounced even by the German, Copernicus. Lets not mince words - following World War I, German historical pugnaciousness was not in doubt and what might serve as militaristic outposts far into Polish land or even the highway through it that Hitler so kindly requested, were rather something that sane negotiators would prefer to buffer. Thus, while it would have been a very hard concession for a statesman and very easy inflammatory source for a militarist, these places were properly given to Poland from both logistical and historical consideration. Perhaps I am making this sound easy, but that is the point - it was not. These were hard choices that sufficient cooperative nationalism would have made. Irrespective of the history pro or con, practical logistics would cede these cities to Poland. Breslau (Wroclaw), on the other hand, was still German after The Versailles Treaty. As Germans had been there for 800 years after its brief foundation by Czechs and alternating habitation with Poles, there should not be dispute over its having remained German at that point. How far Germany still extended into Silesian territory was more debatable but not worth dispute if it would have kept the peace. The matter of Danzig is a bit more subtle: Versailles left it as a neutral city. The Germans could and did inhabit the city – did in vast majority. The Poles did have a historical imprint on the city, including its heyday; thus, to award them access to the city was reasonable. Germanics lived there in ancient history and Poles lived there at different points in history; a mixed German/Polish breed known as Kashubians emerged but disputes continued with the Poles being ousted at times, violently when by the Teutonic Knights. Nevertheless, after World War I Germans could and did live there – having access by sea and air. But where I might have drawn the Versailles borders differently is to put Polish sea access to the East side of Gdansk/Danzig, extending eastward to Elbing. Although Poland may have had historical ties to the west coast of Danzig – viz. Gydynia – and invested hugely there from 1920 until the war - logistics should have prevailed over history and put Polish access to the east side of Gdansk/Danzig. A highway might have proceeded along the coast to allow Germany road travel to East Prussia. Draw bridges beneath it would allow Poland access to the sea. That is of course, IF Hitler was not who he was. Germany did have access to Danzig, was allowed to dock a ship there and proceeded by sneak attack to bomb Polish defenses at Gdansk/Danzig. That more than flies in the face of Nazi propaganda about this being a defensive war on their part. It is also quite a different opening to World War II than the (I now know) Nazi propaganda footage we were always shown as the commence of the war, with dashing Nazi panzers going up against hapless Polish cavalry.
The Poles had struggled 120 years to regain their nation only to have the Nazis move to take it away from them just 20 years later. Those overly disposed to sympathize with the Nazi point of view might like to believe Goebbels propaganda, to believe in the false flag operations such as Gleiwitz, that the Germans were under attack. There were Nazi black ops going on in Poland prior to the war and at its onset of which the Poles were aware; in the shock and horror three days after the attack on Danzig/Gdansk, a retreating Polish army or Polish irregulars (or Polish and/or Jewish locals gone rogue) may have over-reacted by killing German civilians in Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) upon reports of sniping – or perhaps it was a bit more justified than what might be characterized as a mere panicked over-reaction, as German civilians there were noted as early as 1935 pledging allegiance to the Nazis; advanced Nazi agents may have been there as well. Whatever the case, Nazi propaganda and their present day sympathizers tend to use the event as evidence of the ex-nihlo evil of the Poles – not even granting the context of the start of World War II against them two days before! ..let alone subtle considerations: perhaps there was Nazi partisan activity, black ops and sniping going on there. Whatever the case, Goebbels capitalized on it to propagandize it as justification for further incursion against Poland. And of the particular killings of Germans in Bydgoszcz, Nazi propaganda and direct consequent action more than made-up for it, killing ten times the number of Polish civilians in response.
And extending this analogy, importantly, that the Jews have more than made-up for whatever grievances they have had. 6,000,000 would be a very small fraction of the number of European/White people killed-off as a result of Jewish policy, power and influence.
They saw - all in violation of The Treaty of Versailles – German: re-armament, re-militarization of the Rhineland, taking over Austria, taking all of Czechoslovakia after appeasement was attempted by ceding the Sudetenland. But really, one had to look no farther than Mein Kampf to see that Hitler had designs to take over East Europe. That he would take Zamosc, a city never, at any point in history, German, and rename it “Himmlerstadt”, to be the Eastern capital of the Third Reich, provides a clue that being satisfied to stop at Danzig and leave Poland alone after that was not exactly a priority of their agenda.
I don’t know what the hell so called White Nationalists are thinking when they would propose to have us all rally behind Hitler and Nazism. But it is not reasonable to expect people from countries who had their people lined up and shot, their women strafed by the Luftwaffe, their cities bombed to hell by the Nazis to rally behind and with you. Diversity in WN is good, but Nazism is necessarily divisive. If you want people to share in sympathy over the bombing of Germany and its deaths, then you ought to share in sympathy for the bombing and deaths of the rest of Europe. You should not expect WN’s to rally behind the swastika any more than expect them to rally behind another symbol of particular European nationalism transformed into violent aggression against neighboring White peoples. In that regard, given Nazi Germany’s overcompensation, it is not wrong that Poland was granted Wroclaw (Breslau) again after an 800 year absence. The Germans had moved in originally only after the Poles there were wiped out by a Mongol invasion. But of relevant importance now, by transferring it and surrounding Silesia back to Poland, the fight over L’viv and (now) western Ukraine was ended as the Poles who were there, along with those who had lived in Grodno and Vilnius, were moved to Wroclaw; and to the surrounding Silesia region; as well as to the region of Pomerania in the Northwest, also restored to Poland. Gdansk is four lovely streets with some ornate buildings, the widest street comprising the market square; anyone who wants to have a war over this city is need of a mental health check-up. Let it be a part of Poland now and forget about it. Why not rather look toward Montana, etc. for living space? Wise statesman would seek cooperation of European nationalists to secure their native populations, to work to remove citizenship from Jews and other non-native Europeans. The best way to do this is to declare the nations anew and void non-Europeans from consideration of citizenship. Our nations would be reformed in the virtual sphere first and then efforts made to retake them on their actual grounds. To fight about whether Pomerania should be a part of Poland now? No. We cooperate against non-Europeans and use that cooperative European nationalism to seek additional, sacrosanct European nationalist living spaces on other continents as well. Thus, if we are looking with 20/20 hindsight into an unnecessary war, it was for lack of the statesmanship that could have conceived and implemented things in that manner. It is unfortunate to have to address this matter now, as I might have hoped it was more clear that identification with the swastika was negative, divisive and unnecessary. I have been forced to consider why it is not more obvious for others and I hypothesize that it has largely to do with the following factors: too complete a genetic overlap with the Nazis or too little genetic overlap with those in the path and wrath of the Nazi juggernaut; resulting overcompensation; arbitrary historical punctuation in order to throw-off overbearing guilt trips and to confidently address the catastrophe that has befallen the west as a result of Jewish imposed liberalism. That is, it is all too easy for some, there is a very strong logical force from some perspectives to adopt the position that the Nazis were simply right. If, as I hypothesize, that unanimity with the Nazi position stems from overlap/underlap of guilt trips and results in an overwhelming need to overcompensate for that, particularly in the wake of Jewish imposed liberalisms’ vast destruction, which then sets about conveniently serving arbitrary historical punctuation - and if it is agreed that this unanimity is unnecessary if not destructive, including self destructive for its tactlessness - what may remedy look like? Remedy would borrow perspective from the relative innocence of other European countries and White Nationals wherever they might be. This would provide analogy that allows for the tracing of innocence in not only German but all White Nationalisms. What I mean by innocence in this context is not purity and certainly not innocence of anti-Semitism - just the opposite. In fact, that neighboring European countries sought to maintain their borders, populations and were deeply troubled by Jewish power and influence as well. The Wodanist admiration for war bravery would be a quaint culturalism were it not for its potential for wreaking and having wreaked havoc on what could have been statesmanship. A Wodanist might look upon these things as a joke. Nevertheless, if we are to indulge in 20/20 hindsight, we might theorize potential agreement of mutual sovereignty for European Nationalisms, which does not recognize Jews as European but nationals of some non-European place. In mutual recognition of the European nations’ mutual aims there might be a cooperative effort to effect the control and population of European Nations to their native own. In pursuit of balance, we will take the most relevant examples of historical European Nationalism from both sides, and from different sides, so that correction to the overstatement and false either or might be shown – providing perspective on innocence in normal parameters of European nationalism; while additional perspective (not necessarily at odds, nor either/or) may also provide flexibility for cooperation.
It is another noteworthy matter that Polish service in World War I was largely contracted with the agreement that they might regain their national sovereignty upon conclusion of the war
Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:10 | # I had failed to paste these two paragraphs into the main post at first. They make an important empathic difference: After it was taken from them by the Prussians, three generations of Germans lived there. It would have been very strange and understandably bewildering, dismaying for a generation born when there was nobody alive who could remember its not being a German city - to then have the city restored to Poland. It was a hard decision imposed by The Treaty of Versailles, but a correct understanding of the historical justice and logistics. Breslau (Wroclaw) was still German. As they had been there for 800 years after its brief foundation by Czechs then alternating habitation with Poles, there should not be much dispute over its being German. How far Germany still extended into Silesian territory was more debatable but not worth disputing if it would have kept the peace. 3
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:02 | # I think I covered the follies of that particular political ideology here http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_ghosts_of_the_past May I suggest any ‘Nazis’ read it - if in fact they can read and also have the cognitive ability to understand my arguments. “In the stygian murkiness, reckless and despairing forces multiplied. . .” http://www.amazon.co.uk/Where-Ghosts-Walked-Munichs-Third/dp/039303836X 4
Posted by Bordwell on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:10 | # The standard narrative is that the Germans were going to “exterminate” the Poles and Slavs. Note that the Germans had allied with Slavic nations such as Slovakia and Croatia. Do you believe the standard narrative? 5
Posted by Bordwell on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:16 | #
At the time of WWII, virtually the entire globe was under the control of European imperial power. Seeking living space anywhere would have meant conflict with some European power. 6
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:46 | # Posted by Bordwell on October 25, 2013, 01:10 PM | # The standard narrative is that the Germans were going to “exterminate” the Poles and Slavs. Note that the Germans had allied with Slavic nations such as Slovakia and Croatia. Do you believe the standard narrative? I believe the Nazi agenda with regard to the Poles was different than with the Slovaks and Croats. However, that they perhaps did not seek to thoroughly “exterminate” them is not an important question. It is fair to say that they would have liked to take as much of Poland for themselves as possible and that they wanted the Poles, particularly those unGermanicizable, out of the way of German inhabitation of that extended living space. 7
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:48 | # Posted by Bordwell on October 25, 2013, 01:16 PM | # We cooperate against non-Europeans and use that cooperative European nationalism to seek additional, sacrosanct European nationalist living spaces on other continents as well. At the time of WWII, virtually the entire globe was under the control of European imperial power. Seeking living space anywhere would have meant conflict with some European power. Germans already had additional living space - they were the largest demographic in The United States - by far. 8
Posted by Bordwell on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:06 | # If you’re half-Italian/half-Polish and from America, you’re coming from a White American Nationalist viewpoint, even if you reject America. The original “melting pot” in America broke down ethnic and national identities and produced various mixed people who couldn’t fully identify with an older European ethnic or national identity, but could identify with a White identity. It’s easy to see how from this viewpoint the older identities appear to be too parochial, narrow, exclusive, irrelevant, and even dangerous to the general White identity that developed among the mixed White Americans, but these identities still have some integrity in Europe, unlike in the US where they’ve been broken down. Now these ethnic and national identities may break down eventually as they did in the US, especially with increasing integration, migration and travel, intermarriage, etc. among different Europeans, but they still exist at the current time. 9
Posted by Bordwell on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:11 | #
I was referring to Germany. 10
Posted by Bordwell on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:19 | #
Poles, Slovaks, and Croats are Slavs. If the Nazis had different agendae for them, then that would suggest that the claim that the Nazis had a single aim for all Slavs, such as extermination, is not true. The question of whether or not they sought to thoroughly “exterminate” them is obviously an important question, since extermination is not identical to taking over or dominating a territory. 11
Posted by Fuze on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:07 | # A big yawn and, like the lolocaust minutiae, totally irrelevant to our current situations and problems. If anything, such useless posts only serve the enemies interests. 12
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 22:31 | # Posted by Fuze on October 25, 2013, 04:07 PM | # A big yawn and, like the lolocaust minutiae, totally irrelevant to our current situations and problems. If anything, such useless posts only serve the enemies interests.
13
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 22:43 | # Poles, Slovaks, and Croats are Slavs. If the Nazis had different agendae for them, then that would suggest that the claim that the Nazis had a single aim for all Slavs, such as extermination, is not true. The question of whether or not they sought to thoroughly “exterminate” them is obviously an important question, since extermination is not identical to taking over or dominating a territory.
I did not say that they had a single aim of extermination of all Slavs. Hitler left practical details to his underlings to “solve problems” as they would. It may seem like an important question to you, because you somehow feel blamed for literally having this intent and therefore you are guilt-tripped for it; and want not to be. The stress of that perhaps effects judgment of relevance, and places over emphasis on logic within unanimity: hence it is so important (to you) if extermination was an explicit agenda. What happened as a result of the lines and method Hitler chose was not good. The results are clear. 14
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:25 | # I haven’t had time at the moment to read this article (good pics, though). Here are my ‘two cents’ (or ‘quid’, as might be more appropriate at this venue): I am opposed to Nazism on both Christian and pragmatic White Preservationist grounds. The Nazi episode was an undeniable disaster for white genetic interests. That said, let’s not make the mistake of conflating paleo- and neo-Nazis. The Hitler crowd were both German and Aryan supremacists. They acknowledged white superiority, but they sought Germanic overlordship of an overall Aryan-ruled planet. They employed a fairly narrow definition of who is white, and thought nothing of killing other whites (in addition to non-Aryans, obviously). I am not aware that today’s neo-Nazis are also particularist ethnonationalists (except as a step on the road to the broader Aryan state or at least alliance). Do neos promote intrawhite ethnic hatred? Perhaps some do in Eastern Europe, but certainly not in the West. It could well be argued that today’s neos are much closer to a pure WN than many anti-immigrant ENs. In other words, one can imagine Croat and Serb neo-Nazis getting along much better than ethnos, who hate each other and have spilled much blood in the recent past. As a WP American, I am a far stronger supporter of the development of a European racial nationalism, and concomitant European superstate (my opposition to Brussels is tactical not principled, based on the agenda of the evil ones who control the EU), than of necessarily resurrecting old European ethnic hatreds. After all, the Irish Catholics and Prods have far more in common with each other than with the Africans and Arabs coming to colonize the Emerald Isle. The same goes for the rest of Europe. The nations are important; but the civilization and race are what really matter. 15
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:42 | # What I am calling nation corresponds very closely with peoplehood genetically (though not necessarily a thousand percent), political bounds serving as guidelines of human ecology and accountability. These lines, however, should not be exclusive to recognizing the broader genus of the European nation as our mutual concern; nor on the other hand, should it be exclusive to the boundaries of smaller units of concern, qualitatively differentiated communities. How these concerns are to be balanced is a question, as I do not see how the smaller units could wield enough power to protect themselves and the whole. 16
Posted by Weaver on Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:59 | # Nazi is a slur word akin to the word n—-er. It shouldn’t be used. If the goal is to reconcile with Germans to work towards a mutually beneficial future, a start would be to not use this other n-word. However, if cheerleading is the true objective, then by all means go ahead. Germans were the largest immigrant group in the US, but I doubt they’ve ever been the largest ethnic group if linking all who are mostly British as a different group, even if excluding the Irish. The US demographics were overwhelmingly English, not just British, before the waves of more recent immigrants arrived in the late 19th century. If Britain hadn’t attacked Germany, we might have seen less warring or more exclusive warring between Germany and Russia. Britain in retrospect was foolish to attack. A state shouldn’t war except where such is necessary or at least beneficial. Often it’s best for wars to be avoided, peace made even if a smaller wrong need be tolerated. Germany clearly made mistakes. It should have dropped Danzig. German dreams of colonising Poland are no worse than English dreams of colonising Ireland. Germany was in the wrong, but it’s not the first nation to act thusly. Even today English conservatives continue to praise Nietzsche, so I’m doubtful they’re truly any better - just cheering on Team England. Regarding atrocities, the Allies committed them too, and pictures of dead people don’t tell the story of how they died, the why and by whom. 17
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 26 Oct 2013 06:43 | # Posted by Weaver on October 25, 2013, 11:59 PM | # Nazi is a slur word akin to the word n—-er. It shouldn’t be used. If the goal is to reconcile with Germans to work towards a mutually beneficial future, a start would be to not use this other n-word. However, if cheerleading is the true objective, then by all means go ahead. I strongly disagree. Nazi is a pejorative word that should be used (even as opposed to NS) in order to distinguish between a violently aggressive regime - one with imperialistically expansionist aims against its White neighbors - as opposed to Germans, German nationalists and any other reasonable White nationalists. Germans were the largest immigrant group in the US, but I doubt they’ve ever been the largest ethnic group if linking all who are mostly British as a different group, even if excluding the Irish. Yes, Germans are the largest White group in the US and by far. Irish are a distant second, though still a little larger than the English at third. The US demographics were overwhelmingly English, not just British, before the waves of more recent immigrants arrived in the late 19th century. It may have been overwhelmingly English until the waves of German and Irish immigration in the 1800s. Since then its been more German - by far, more than any other kind of White. Irish second most. If Britain hadn’t attacked Germany, we might have seen less warring or more exclusive warring between Germany and Russia. You’ve obviously got a pro German view if you say that Britain attacked Germany rather than Britain and France signed an agreement warning Nazi Germany, not to invade Poland. Britain in retrospect was foolish to attack. I’ll let British experts speak as to their motives. In retrospect, Germany was foolish to attack Eastward. A state shouldn’t war except where such is necessary or at least beneficial. Often it’s best for wars to be avoided, peace made even if a smaller wrong need be tolerated. We can agree on that much except that would not agree that “beneficial” is a particularly good reason. Germany clearly made mistakes. It should have dropped Danzig. It didn’t even have to drop it in a sense, as it had both access and habitation albeit non-exclusive. I’m not an expert on the Ireland/English conflict - I hope that the Irish did not suffer so badly. The death and destruction that Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia suffered were severe. Poland alone is quite a comparison to venture. My guess is that Ireland would be a little more comparable to Czechoslovakia. Germany was in the wrong, but it’s not the first nation to act thusly. Well, I agree and I am not looking to lay guilt trips on Germans. I would prefer to be done with this issue; the problem is that all too many are going around extolling Hitler, Nazi Germany and acting as if we ought to all comfortably rally around the swastika - they ought to see that it is not a good idea. To say yes, we are White/European nationalists but no we are not Nazis is the reasonable position. To identify as a Nazi is to identify with a nation at war with other Whites, including Russians. You simply cannot expect people of these nations to ally with the swastika. Its going to divide people who can otherwise get along in theory and in practice - you would not even know how many allies would be kept away just because people insist on flying the swastika - it a symbol of those who had no qualms about shooting people of their nations. Why do you think Jews insist on calling us neo Nazi? Because they know it will work to keep people away from WN Regarding atrocities, the Allies committed them too, and pictures of dead people don’t tell the story of how they died, the why and by whom. No, pictures do not tell the full story, but again, these are hypotheses, it could take forever to detail every picture from the war. Though I am willing to discuss them wherever necessary. The problem is that we have some Nazi over-sympathisizers who are only going to see excuses for the Nazi atrocities, not sighting any understandable motive to those who acted against them, they are only going to see ex-nilo evil reasons for death and destruction to Nazi era Germans. Please don’t try to tell me it isn’t true as the whole reason I wrote this article is because I got sick and tired (enraged by the foolish danger at times) of hearing accounts from White Nationalists which are entirely and overly sympathetic with the Nazi point of view. 18
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:17 | # In fact, the term Nazi could and should serve to distance the regime’s infamy from present day Germans. That is the point. By analogy, if I am not going to consider present day Germans guilty (and I am not) for the Nazi regime, I will be damned if I am going to feel guilty about the Feudal exploits of the Polish regime circa 1650 which inspired the Khmelnytsky uprising and a ten second moment of silence from the Orthodox Nationalist as he recounted for an a Nazi overly sympathetic audience the story of Poland’s having been wiped off the map at the time. 19
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:12 | # Posted by Bordwell on October 25, 2013, 03:06 PM | # If you’re half-Italian/half-Polish and from America, you’re coming from a White American Nationalist viewpoint, even if you reject America. The original “melting pot” in America broke down ethnic and national identities and produced various mixed people who couldn’t fully identify with an older European ethnic or national identity, but could identify with a White identity. It is true that I can identify as a White Nationalist and not fully with one of the particular European nationalities, but it is not true that I cannot understand them. They do not seem too parochial, narrow and exclusive or irrelevant to me. I never have taken this view. But if you look at the map above of Germany/Prussia 1871 to 1918, that is hardly parochial and narrow. Hence, I am arguing something opposite to what you are accusing me of - and am rather saying that Poland has the right to exist as a nation, so does Czech, etc. A Nazi, or American Nazi point of view may wish to view these as parochial and narrow concerns. and even dangerous to the general White identity that developed among the mixed White Americans, but these identities still have some integrity in Europe, unlike in the US where they’ve been broken down. I know!
20
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:26 | # Bordwell, to contest your suggestion a bit further, that I cannot understand the provincialism of the circumstances: The Pomeranians, The Mazurians, The Vistulans, The Polans and The Silesians were/are five Slavic tribes that were consolidated from smaller tribes and then became unified as Poles. I see no disputes in the history over the fact that Silesians are a Slavic tribe of what is now southwest Poland. Would you contend Rodney Martin’s (Hitler is god and the Nazis were perfect) worldview, with his being a German American, who portrays the Silesians as Germans who want a provincial break-away? Or is he disingenuously looking at Germans or mixed Germans who live in Silesia and saying “Silesians” identify as Germans? Who is it that does not understand provincialism and is taking a facile view on it? 21
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:38 | # Not to mention that, in real life, the Nazi leadership wash awash in homosexuality. And Hitler did ===never touched=== any of the tens of thousands of hot young Aryan women who would have been thrilled to carry his baby. Contrast that behavior with any of the Hebrew kings, or of Genghis Khan. Half of today’s world population has remnants of Mongol genes. 22
Posted by Quine on Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:16 | # I’m not surprised a Jew comes in here with the “Nazis were gay” propaganda. Here’s James Bowery on that: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/08/world-war-gay.html?showComment=1376335755337#c1999432316989276517
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/08/world-war-gay.html?showComment=1376347628567#c8835276294422282566
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/08/world-war-gay.html?showComment=1376348134753#c4252457253384036283
23
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:27 | # To pose the question as, “would the WWII generation rather go to war with the present day US government or Nazi Germany” basically just reconstructs the false either/or. 24
Posted by Quine on Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:36 | # I don’t know that it is the same “false either/or” you have in mind, since it’s clearly not false. 25
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 27 Oct 2013 23:49 | # Its a false in being posed as simple binary choice. 26
Posted by Quine on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:56 | # He wasn’t posing “the question”. It was just a simple hypothetical. I don’t think what he said was false, and most people would agree. 27
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 03:39 | # It is a binary option, fight “the American government or fight the Nazis”, which passively frames the Nazis as simply “more right”, ignoring the fact that the Nazis were attacking White Nations to their east - Belarus, Poland and Ukraine - who were all anti Soviet, had fought Russian incursions for centuries (facts ignored by the “Barbarossa was necessary argument”), and whose nations were all significantly anti-semitic - therefore capable of cooperation in a transfer agreement. It is false for the purpose of White concordance, as the Nazis were against these countries because of their policy with regard to Slavic nations, at least the ones to their east, who obstructed territorial ambition. 28
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:20 | # ... Breslau (Wroclaw) was still German. As they had been there for 800 years after its brief foundation by Czechs then alternating habitation with Poles, there should not be much dispute over its being German. How far Germany still extended into Silesian territory was more debatable but not worth disputing if it would have kept the peace. Still being German then, after Versailles
29
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:42 | # Quine, Jim could have been making an interesting point and analogy in the context of another blog. But as an argument, it does not fit well on this thread - it goes against the thesis by being an either/or: either the US government or the Nazi regime. 30
Posted by Quine on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:56 | # What “binary option” are you talking about? No such thing exists. It’s just a hypothetical. And most people would agree with Bowery’s point. 31
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 05:41 | # Hypothetical is false in a sense by itself. But irrespective of that.. whether most World War II veterans would rather fight the US government or Nazi Germany contexualizes a choice between one or the other. It could be an interesting provocative point on the thread where it was raised. On this thread it has tendency to lead back into the framework that I am trying to show the way out of - out of the paradigm: either Hitler, Nazism or the International Jew 32
Posted by Lech on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 07:13 | #
A victor’s version of history. The massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia by…Ukrainian nationalists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia#Ethnic_cleansing 33
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 07:57 | # Thanks for your comment, Lech. Of course I am aware of the atrocities that were committed between the Ukrainians and Poles - to my understanding, it went both ways. But I am not sure how that contradicts the idea that the Nazis were anti-Slavic (at least with regard to the Slavic nations to their East); they could have had allies in Ukrainian Nationalists; Belarusian nationalists and even in Polish nationalists. Ukraine, Poland and Belarus were all anti-Jewish and anti-Soviet - to the point where they would fight them. When I said cooperation between Germany toward that end would have been difficult, I meant it: these killings between Poland and Ukraine would have been chief among these difficulties - perhaps insurmountable; but again, difficult as they were, not more difficult than what actually transpired. 34
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:50 | # Lech, remember that I am proposing these as hypotheses - they are offered for correction. First, I would like to say that personally, I would rather that Poland have L’wow than Wroclaw (Breslau). But at this point I do not see a point in disputing the matter. I imagine that the hypothesis that you are taking exception to is this one, particularly this first sentence: “From the point of view of hindsight, Pilsudski was wrong to wage battle to retain Vilnius and L’viv as Polish.” ...“L’viv would have been difficult for the Poles to relinquish entirely. The Poles built that city and put a lot into it. Perhaps it should have been negotiated to be some sort of neutral city but of that conflict between historical input and logistics, logistics should probably have been favored, as it extends a bit too far into rightfully Ukrainian populated lands.” To my understanding, the Poles tried to keep the city but Stalin took it and gave it to the Urkainians and gave Wroclaw to the Poles instead.
“From the point of view of hindsight, Pilsudski was wrong to wage battle to retain Vilnius and L’viv as Polish.” And perhaps you are right. How would you suggest rephrasing this?
35
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:18 | # Lech, this will undoubtedly be unsatisfying still, but I have tried rewriting the paragraph this way based on your input, adding the sentence in bold here: “From the point of view of hindsight, Pilsudski may have elected not to wage battle to retain Vilnius and L’viv as Polish. In the case of Vilnius, however, he may have had some encouragement from the Belarusians (the original Lithuanians) as they saw him as fighting the Soviets for the city and possibly bringing it, their ancient capital, back into their fold eventually by means of this fight. He was probably also wrong not to give The Belarusians their sovereignty to fight the Soviets more of and for their own accord. L’viv would have been difficult for the Poles to relinquish entirely. The Poles built that city and put a lot into it. There was the additional harrowing complication of atrocities committed between the Poles and Ukrainians which would have made not fighting near impossible. Perhaps it should have been negotiated to be some sort of neutral city but of that conflict between historical input and logistics, logistics should probably have been favored, as it extends a bit too far into rightfully Ukrainian populated lands.”
However, I am trying to call attention to the imperfection of Pilsudski’s nationalism, and thereby share responsibility a bit - particularly since Pilsudski was apparently also in defiance of The Treaty of Versailles regarding Vilnius. 36
Posted by Lech on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 22:21 | # Where’s the difference? Nazis grabbing territory is bad because they allegedly formed a plan (of which there is no documented evidence, being constructed based upon circumstantial evidence by ‘historians’ and even if it did exist was not implemented) to exterminate, expunge Slavs yet Ukrainian natonalist ethnic cleansing, in an attemot to grab territory is well ‘understandable’. It appears that nationalists, Nazis and Coummunist of the era were all quite willing to commit vile atrocities against neighboring Europeans in order assert their dominance over territory. Why? Rienzi writes…
If acquisition and defense of territory are an integral human strategy, essentially the story of European history since its inception, then it has little to do with a binary option.
37
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 00:49 | # I see. You chose the name “Lech” deceptively, to be perceived of as a Polish patriot. Forgive me for using he word “binary” and stepping on techno-toes. But you rather seem determined to make the Nazis seem “not that bad.” They were bad enough but more to the point, they do not represent the only choice. I am not claiming purity of other nationalist operations; but the nationals to the East were all anti-Soviet, willing to fight, and with that, containing significantly anti-Jewish strains, naturally, being European nationalists. Continuing with your dishonestly, you want to once again assert that it is important that Hitler may not have had a deliberate plan to exterminate Slavs. It is not important. You think it is an important semantic victory - “if there was no plan to exterminate, there was no “holocaust.” Nor is this matter of intent to genocide the point of debate. We are talking about nationalism and boundaries of a native people. Here, you do make one good point, if perhaps only accidentally in defining the issue of borders, you call attention to the fact that the Versailles borders may have been even more dangerously arbitrary and ambiguous in the East; that left the Poles fighting with the Ukrainians for what is now far Western Ukraine (as well as fighting over Vilnius despite the Treaty). Nevertheless, horrible and destructive as these fights were people-wise, they were only a relatively small historically disputed territory that did border the historical nations - difficultly resolved but since resolved with the Ukrainians, who have L’viv and that area. Belarusian Nationalists may feel deprived of their ancient capital, Vilnius, but that is another matter. Perhaps your point is that Gdansk/Danzig was a small, ill defined territory; and this led to conflict as a result. Well, there are arguments to be made that it should be a Polish city, but the fact is, that after Versailles the city was defined as “free”, Germans could live there and did. From a broad historical perspective, it was valid to allow Poles access to the city. I have proposed that it may have been better to place their sea access to the east of the city. But none of that matters when you take into account Hitler’s territorial aims which were known to not stop there. Though he may not have had an explicit plan, it was clear enough in theory and even more so in practice, which he left it to his underlings to carry-out - the practicalities of “problem solution.” Even though that allows the disingenuous claim that it is important that there was no plan, the reality is that he went on with the “practical” matters of bombing Warsaw to hell and renaming Zamosc, Himmlerstadt, which was to be the Eastern capital of the Third Reich. Now then, if it was the Eastern capital and perched on the edge of Ukraine, it is not far fetched to believe that he wanted Ukrainian territory and not cooperation with Ukrainian nationalists. You seem to want me to say that it was not understandable that Hitler and the Nazis wanted to take the land of Poland and Ukraine. I did not say that it was not in some sense understandable. But it was also understandable - and far more warranted - for the Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians to defend their national boundaries. Indications are that the Nazis did not care if these boundaries existed at all. They were going into central and far eastern Poland, lands over which they did not even have any historical dispute, and killing people. That is why I included the picture of the Poles hung at Krakow. Not to lay guilt trips but to show this was at Krakow, not somewhere in or near historical German borders. So, the difference is that Nazi Germany was going into territories where it had no historical claim and killing people.
38
Posted by Lech on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:25 | # The point missed is that historical precedence has no bearing upon the issue. The Romans conquered lands and slaughtered millions and enslaved millions more in lands which they had no historical claim. The point is that it is an action integral to a tribal/national survival strategy. Ukrainian and Polsih nationalists did not clash over the JQ. They clashed over territorial acquisition and defence. It is a component enmeshed in European history. The eastward expansion of Germanic tribes and people is as old as the dawn of time. America was built upon territorial acquisition of lands upon which they had no historical claim. Manifest Destiny was an ideological construct that justified it. Again, how is the Nazi expansion to the east different from the historical European narrative?
39
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 03:24 | # ...... The point missed is that historical precedence has no bearing upon the issue.
And the Romans were wrong too from a point of view of European nationalist alliance; which is the point of view taken here. The point is that it is an action integral to a tribal/national survival strategy. Ukrainian and Polsih nationalists did not clash over the JQ. The JQ figured in, in some complex ways, but that it was a clash basically over border areas and towns in disputed territory was more the point apparently, yes. They clashed over territorial acquisition and defence. Yes. There was a history of Slavic peoples defending themselves and their territories as well. America was built upon territorial acquisition of lands upon which they had no historical claim. Yes. Manifest Destiny was an ideological construct that justified it. Again, how is the Nazi expansion to the east different from the historical European narrative? It is different for more than one reason, but particularly for the fact that there would be a closer genetic history between Germans and those they attacked to their east; than Europeans who fought with Amerindians. I understand your point; it is not entirely different, but different enough to not say, hey! The Nazis were a group that all Europeans should get behind because they were so damn righteous and innocent that no reasonable person could object to their aims and policies! There is a difference between showing some understanding and sympathy as opposed to agreement on balance that their collective judgment was correct. It was not. They particularly muffed the friends enemy distinction. Would that have been hard to draw correctly at that point in history? Yes, perhaps impossible for the participants. That is why I frequently refer to hindsight being 20/20 to hold close to the breast that it may be easy for us to see things now; and thus, not to lay guilt trips on those descended from nationalists of the times, be they German or whomever. What Sherman called the “final solution of the Indian problem” involved “killing hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote places.” . . . . Sherman’s overall policy was never accommodation and compromise, but vigorous war against the Indians,” whom he regarded as “a less-than-human and savage race”
It would have been hard for them to see the Versailles borders as reasonable but they were close to right. It may have been difficult for them to sufficiently appreciate that Belarus, Poland and Ukrainian nationalists were all more than willing to fight the Soviets; and also that Belarusian, Polish and Ukrainian nationals were also significantly anti-Jewish - to the extent that negotiating a de-nationalizing of Jews from European status and transferring them out of Europe (and Russia, ultimately) was/is theoretically conceivable. 40
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:40 | # A seldom - appreciated, German viewpoint : http://wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/welcome.html 41
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 05:42 | # Al these are “seldom-considered” viewpoints in the mainstream media. However, in White Nationalism, and for those of us who look toward White Nationalism for our news and information, these viewpoints are belabored to imbalance, while the views of other European nationals are scarcely considered. 43
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:17 | # .......... I find you invaluable to that project, for example in your stance against Christianity. I very much appreciate it.
1. That Belarus as a nation is not a mere part of Russia, that its true nationalists have been at odds with Russia for centuries, suffered horrific losses of millions in those struggles for independence; that its nationals of necessity understand the J.Q.; that they were ready to align and more than willing to fight against the Soviets. 2. It may be only a bit better known that Ukrainian nationalists were willing to fight against the Soviets; and of course understand/understood the J.Q. 3. The ubiquitous Polish joke of American currency in the decades that I grew up largely stemmed from a target of convenience: they were a relatively small minority there (therefore their virtues not extolled) compared to America’s Germanic majority and a Jewish informational elite, both of whom had historical, nationalist conflicts with Polish nationalism. However, it is not sufficiently understood that (if you could experience Poles and their culture on the whole) they are not quite so lame; that they are wise to the J.Q. of necessity as well; and that they were not only willing, but did fight heroically and effectively against the Soviets. It was probably a favor owed Warsaw but not exactly reciprocated by Nazi era Berlin. 44
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:14 | # OK, not relevant to the OP, but am I the only one who notices that no one here ever talks about practical ways to actually save the white race? History lessons; complaints about Jews or the MSM; esoteric conspiracy theories, philosophy or science; laments for what’s been lost; political predictions. But rarely anything practical on how to advance white genetic interests within the existent systems. 45
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:39 | # Leon, Don’t try to act like this is a trivial matter being addressed here (when it is at the heart of inter European conflict and resolution) while your wish to work within obsolete frameworks is not going to make a damn bit of difference. 46
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:12 | # I’m revising this paragraph (hypothesis) as the idea that the Versailles borders were close to fair was based on attention to the western border drawn and my relative familiarity with the cities that may have been in dispute or not: Danzig, Bromberg, Thorn, Posen, Breslau I believe the hypothesis holds up as to the borders being drawn properly regarding these cities on the western border, with Germany. However, with Lech calling attention to the level of carnage that the ambiguity of the borders on the east gave way to, it is wrong to describe the Versailles borders as “close to appropriate” - at least not in the East. As the borders were ambiguous in the east and would have needed to cede more clear territory to Poland’s eastward neighbors. To begin then, I revise this paragraph: Continuing with our 20/20 hindsight then, I would like to look at another aspect of the Treaty of Versailles which was not far off the mark, in fact, quite close to appropriate and fair - on the border with Germany (to the East, more land and cities should have been re-designated clearly to Poland’s Eastern neighbors). To see the approximate fairness of the boundaries as they have resulted to date, it is necessary to consider the Polish nationalist perspective. 47
Posted by Weaver on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 22:14 | #
You may call them Hitlerians then. They clearly don’t like “Nazi”. It causes the very needless divisions you ostensibly wish to heal.
This is assuming Brits are not Brits simply because they don’t call themselves Brits. I’m saying those descended from Britain far outnumber those who are German, by nearly 2 to 1. If you include the Irish as Brits, then we outnumber the Germans nearly 3 to 1. If you look at this wiki-map, most of those calling themselves “American” came from Britain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg Contrary to popular opinion, the US was not a “Nation of Immigrants”. It was a nation of Englishmen with a few others. We took in the French with the Louisiana Purchase, but we remained mostly British as a whole. Reg. Sherman: He was a psychopath. He used total war on whites in the South. He didn’t treat blacks well either. 48
Posted by Weaver on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 22:37 | # “You’ve obviously got a pro German view if you say that Britain attacked Germany rather than Britain and France signed an agreement warning Nazi Germany, not to invade Poland.” I obviously do not. Hitler did not believe France and Britain would attack him. Hitler did not want war with them. I’m sick of the blame-Hitler history. I’m also sick of seeing Brits and Germans divide over this historical conflict. I suspect a German would have a defence for the attack on Poland. I’d assumed Hitler simply wanted Danzig and had a claim to it, and that the people living there had overwhelmingly wanted to join Germany. If his actions had to do with Liebenstraum, then yes he was wrong there. I’m not sure he should be condemned for simply acting wrong on Poland. I’ve never heard a Polish talk on the war. I always hear Germans and Americans descended from Brits talking, and it’s only the Germans who ever know anything about the war. The American view is our government should have stayed out. “We can agree on that much except that would not agree that “beneficial” is a particularly good reason.” I didn’t say it’s a “good” reason. I’d prefer a world without war. I again like GK Chesterton’s view. 49
Posted by Weaver on Tue, 29 Oct 2013 22:58 | # Regarding “Brits”: “Germany” takes up a large area. Britain divides into Scottish, Welsh, English, Irish, Ulster/Scots-Irish, possibly some would claim to be “British”, and then you have “American” and “Southern-American”. To find how many in the US are British, you’d add all of those up. Again, you can subtract the Irish since I suppose they’re separate now, but Germany used to be similarly divided. English are very Celtic genetically in this day, and German-English are nearly identical to Celtic-Irish anyway. The English should embrace this by studying Celtic culture and art as partly their own, imo; but that’s another topic. Wikipedia keeps changing, so I don’t know where to get the census data atm. I don’t mean to be rude in my laziness, but if I don’t post now I won’t post with such meager depth until at least this weekend. So, it’s I post now, or I appear rude by responding much later/not at all. For what it’s worth, I agree that “we” shouldn’t rally under the Swastika. However, I don’t expect Germans to give it up. Southerners will never willingly give up the Battle Flag, which was not so “offensive” only a couple decades ago. And our version of the history was better known not long ago as well. The war was very clearly not over slavery. 50
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:41 | # Posted by Weaver on October 29, 2013, 05:14 PM | # I strongly disagree. Nazi is a pejorative word that should be used (even as opposed to NS) in order to distinguish between a violently aggressive regime - one with imperialistically expansionist aims against its White neighbors - as opposed to Germans, German nationalists and any other reasonable White nationalists. You may call them Hitlerians then. They clearly don’t like “Nazi”. It causes the very needless divisions you ostensibly wish to heal. Weaver, I may call Germans Germans and I will call those who identify with Hitler and the Swastika Nazis - I wish to divide from them. They are the ones causing division by identifying with such vast inter-European violence. That is, I will call Nazis those who deliberately identify as such. I will not merely refer to Germans or those who are anti-Jewish as Nazis. I will not use the term neo-Nazi in a way our enemies do. I’m doing them a favor. It as if I wanted to identify with the regime that inspired the Khmelnytsky Yes, Germans are the largest White group in the US and by far. This is assuming Brits are not Brits simply because they don’t call themselves Brits. I’m saying those descended from Britain far outnumber those who are German, by nearly 2 to 1. If you include the Irish as Brits, then we outnumber the Germans nearly 3 to 1. If you look at this wiki-map, most of those calling themselves “American” came from Britain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg Contrary to popular opinion, the US was not a “Nation of Immigrants”. It was a nation of Englishmen with a few others. We took in the French with the Louisiana Purchase, but we remained mostly British as a whole.
”
I didn’t say Sherman was OK. What he did was horrific. Regarding blacks, he should have give them shipment back to Africa. 51
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 30 Oct 2013 03:08 | # Weaver says: “I obviously do not” (have a pro German view). If you are sick of the blame Hitler history then you obviously have a pro-German view. “I’m also sick of seeing Brits and Germans divide over this historical conflict.” Then I suggest you stop looking at mainstream media, as I have. However, when you look into WN media, you see that it is dominated by pro-Nazi argumentation; that Britain was on the “wrong side” of the war, is a commonplace contention in WN. I am sick of that and am providing a break for those WN who are not down with Hitler and his worldview. Hitler was not on the right side. The right side would not have drawn “us/them” as he did between Europeans and would not have fore-fronted militarism and its assertion as their policy
Yes, Weaver, we’ve heard their ‘defense’ a thousand times: listen to the Institute of Hysterical Revue if you want to here neoNazi propaganda. I’d assumed Hitler simply wanted Danzig and had a claim to it, You’d assume wrong and that the people living there had overwhelmingly wanted to join Germany. The Germans there may have wanted to join Germany, especially with their being encouraged to agitate as such. But the treaty recognized it as neutral territory as Poland had some legitimate historical claim; and the reason why there was such a predominant German population is because previous Polish residents had been ousted, sometimes violently. This neutrality of the city was perhaps thought to be a means to resolve the situation; perhaps it was also sought as a means to mediate against future German hegemony in the area, as Polish access to the sea was seen as legitimate and vital to its interests (but not a legitimacy that the international community would trust Germany to recognize). It did. I’m not sure he should be condemned for simply acting wrong on Poland. I’ve never heard a Polish talk on the war. I always hear Germans and Americans descended from Brits talking, and it’s only the Germans who ever know anything about the war. The American view is our government should have stayed out. That’s my point exactly and why I wrote and posted this article, so that the Polish view can be heard. “We can agree on that much except that would not agree that “beneficial” is a particularly good reason.” I didn’t say it’s a “good” reason. I’d prefer a world without war. I again like GK Chesterton’s view. 52
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 30 Oct 2013 03:37 | # Posted by Weaver on October 29, 2013, 05:58 PM | # Regarding “Brits”: “Germany” takes up a large area. Britain divides into Scottish, Welsh, English, Irish, Ulster/Scots-Irish, possibly some would claim to be “British”, and then you have “American” and “Southern-American”. Ok. No argument there. To find how many in the US are British, you’d add all of those up. The Irish have been clearly distinguished with regularity; while the others may be identified, they are not always differentiated as an importantly separate classification of Whites. However they’d like to do it, I hope they manage to get along.
Well, since you are citing etiquette, my comments can be a rude as I try to fire them off in a timely fashion as well. So, let me apologize for that. but if I don’t post now I won’t post with such meager depth until at least this weekend. So, it’s I post now, or I appear rude by responding much later/not at all. I understand perfectly, and it often accounts for my “rudeness” too. For what it’s worth, I agree that “we” shouldn’t rally under the Swastika. Good. Shake on that. However, I don’t expect Germans to give it up. If you listen to a Swedish WN (who lives in Germany) and his recent interview on the White Voice http://thewhitevoice.com/thewhitevoicenetwork/2013/10/27/the-white-voice-34-convo-w-swedish-nationalist-bullying-gay-sex-art - you will hear him make the point that Sweden’s prohibiting their WN’s from flying the swastika has actually done them a favor; it has let them out of a box; allowed serious consideration not to be interrupted by matters of the past, etc.
Personally, I do not object to the Confederate Battle Flag; I do not think it carries quite the dangerous baggage of mass, irreconcilable inter European conflict that the swastika carries and causes it, the swastika, to be so ill advised. And our version of the history was better known not long ago as well. The war was very clearly not over slavery. It always makes me sad to think of all the White men killed in the Civil war - a catastrophe for the White race. I always favor the side of secessionists. Separatism is the first step, separatism is the ultimate aim, separatism is always possible. ................. 53
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 30 Oct 2013 04:41 | # Because my last phrasing presented the civilian massacres as a spurious after thought to the issue - viz. there was the “additional” harrowing complication - I have revised the second half of this paragraph as such:
54
Posted by Drum on Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:20 | #
The swastika carries this baggage because it has been imbued with such by Jews/leftists. The communists are responsible for more deaths but the hammer and sickle doesn’t have the same level of baggage the swastika does because Jews/leftists have controlled the discourse. 55
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:23 | # .
If someone were to try to make the hammer and sickle emblematic of WN it would also be inaccurate and anachronistic. The swastika has been imbued with baggage by its own ideology which drew the friend/enemy between European peoples to cataclysmic results, such as to be impossible to forget or put aside. Hitler had no problem with killing Slavs and taking their lands. The swastika will always mean that the deaths of Eastern Europeans, Russians, their ancient cities and civilizations, are seen as: necessary, a mere inconvenience, a technicality, something to excuse, not that bad, “their fault”, deserved, or even good. You don’t need Jewish propaganda to tell them - or anybody who does not want to see that happen to them - that is horrifically wrong. Therefore, it, the swastika, Hitler, Nazism, is necessarily divisive of WN. Whereas German nationalism is not. It may function symbiotically with all European nationalism. Jewish interests have promoted the vast over-application of its pejorative meaning - to mean just any European person who might recognize a serious conflict with Jews. But that is not a way that I would apply the term; nor is it a meaning I would imply to the image. Contrary to Weaver’s concern above, I would not call people Nazis unless they insisted upon that image, Hitler and his ideology. Nor do I wish for anything but concordance between English, Germans and all Europeans (name the particular nation, including Russia). That is different from saying that NS cannot be referenced and that use cannot be made of certain of its ideas, etc. Nevertheless, meanings which are pejorative to WN are corollary to the swastika, irrespective of Jewish designs. I would not refer to those who even hated Jews, as Nazis, if they did not insist on waving the swastika; adopting Hitler and his ideology literally and completely to the point where its advocates would wave the swastika is mockery of all those Europeans who died and lost vast heritage as a result of its auspices - it is an insurmountable division of European peoples against each other. It would be very simple and only respectful to a civil extent to make-due without it: like not pissing on the graves of White people who defended their ancient lands; or like not dumping radioactive material on a fellow WN’s front yard. I am sorry if I cannot dissuade you, but most of us, including untold many who would be ready to join WN, will simply not accept the symbol and join under its necessarily implied auspices. You might not be worthy of contempt, only tactless because you are not seeing the full implications and the non-necessity of it that I tried to illustrate in this post (try reading it again). It is a shame, because you could have your cake (German nationalism, concern and vigilant reconstruction of its folk) and eat it too (not having to fight with European neighbors but rather drawing the friend distinction around all European nations and having help to separate non-Europeans, most saliently focusing on Jews and traitors, from Europeans). The swastika is an unnecessary obstruction to that. Hitler was not the only one who could think, he was not the only one capable of seeing Jews as non-European and antagonistic as a group; he was not flawless to the point where he merits the reverence of all Europeans - on the contrary. The symbol is unnecessary - tactless at best. One commenter above said that this post was more in service of the enemy. The opposite is true - flying the swastika does more good for our enemies. It is clear. It stigmatizes us, has us at war with one another, is necessarily divisive, makes us anachronistic beyond foolish: symbolizes an epistemic blunder integral to the death of 55 million Europeans. There is no getting around that; but fortunately, it is simply not necessary to use the swastika. It is as plain as day that it is a horrible image to associate with: that is why Jews want to call us neo-Nazi and that is why I would never refer to anyone (not a German nationalist, not even someone who is stridently against Jews) as a neo-Nazi (unless they insist on waving the swastika, reverence Hitler, Mein Kemf and NS ideology beyond its serious flaws); and I would eagerly refrain from calling them Nazis in the moment they drop the imagery and its ideology, necessarily conflictual of Whites, and unnecessary to WN as it is. 56
Posted by Daryl Basarab on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:28 | # Fighting between european nationalities isn’t the only issue with nazism (they saw other nationalities as separate races). It’s also the false belief that Caucasoids originated in Northern Europe, adopting views towards ‘the Jewish question’ instead of anti-zionism but Jews in general, mistreatment and separation from non-whites, quack anthropology that argues that whiteness is defined based on European location and linguistics, obsession with defending capitalism, ‘the white money movement,’ anti-communism etc. In short white nationalism and nazism are failed ideologies.
57
Posted by Daryl Basarab on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:31 | # one more thing - obsession with gaining female participants… 58
Posted by Drum on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:55 | #
No, the swastika carries this baggage because it has been imbued with such by Jews/leftists. Any intellectually honesty person would admit this. Hitler also had no problem with allying with Slavs and defending them from Bolshevism. You’re biased because of your identity, which is fine and understandable, but you shouldn’t pretend to be impartial about this.
59
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:22 | # In short white nationalism and nazism are failed ideologies. Darly, White Nationalism is in its infancy. It will be. Get used to it.
60
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:36 | # No, the swastika carries this baggage because it has been imbued with such by Jews/leftists. Any intellectually honesty person would admit this. Absolute nonsense. It is German aggression against neighboring people. Violent aggression. About as kind as they got was to kidnap Polish children to be taken for Germanicization.
Well then, why didn’t he ally with the Poles, the Belarusians and the Ukrainians (the Ukrainians, to begin with, anyway - later on, he finally did) if he didn’t have a problem? The answer is because he wanted their land. You’re biased because of your identity, which is fine and understandable, but you shouldn’t pretend to be impartial about this. I am Italian/ Polish American. My bias is toward the concordance of European peoples. Nazism doesn’t do that. I am not going to convince you; I have not set about to convince people who are determined to believe in the righteousness of the Nazi view. I don’t believe that I will change the mind of people like that. I am addressing people who do not want to be associated with Nazism. People who can see that it is not necessary. 61
Posted by Drum on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:59 | #
I think there’s no question that the swastika carries the degree of baggage that it does because it has been imbued with such by Jews/leftists. Otherwise it would be just another symbol among countless others - the cross, the hammer and sickle, Roman symbols, etc. I think any intellectually honesty person would admit this.
Exactly, he allied with some Slavs and not with others. He wasn’t uniformly against all Slavs as you insinuate.
That’s my point.
Yes, but how exactly does one become “associated with Nazism”? Does one hop into a time machine and go back 75 years? Because that’s when “Nazism” actually existed. No, one gets associated with “Nazism” by Jews/leftists who use the term as a weapon. 62
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:42 | # Posted by Drum on October 31, 2013, 03:59 PM | # Absolute nonsense. I think there’s no question that the swastika carries the degree of baggage that it does because it has been imbued with such by Jews/leftists. Listen to Metger. He will straighten you out about “leftists” and national socialists (who were leftists theoretically, to begin). And Metzger does not hate Germans. He liked them. He is half German. The same as me, he does not want us fighting. Otherwise it would be just another symbol among countless others - the cross, the hammer and sickle, Roman symbols, etc. I think any intellectually honesty person would admit this. Not true. You think that by bandying the phrase “intellectual honesty” you can intimidate. But you cannot with that - not by a long shot. I am intellectually honest and I can tell you in all intellectual honesty, that the swastika is a disastrous symbol.
Exactly, he allied with some Slavs and not with others. He wasn’t uniformly against all Slavs as you insinuate.
I am Italian/ Polish American. That’s my point. What point? You think that I don’t know the situation in Europe on these grounds? Try me. I am addressing people who do not want to be associated with Nazism. People who can see that it is not necessary. Yes, but how exactly does one become “associated with Nazism”? Does one hop into a time machine and go back 75 years? Because that’s when “Nazism” actually existed. No, one gets associated with “Nazism” by Jews/leftists who use the term as a weapon. Not by me. One gets associated with it only by insisting on using that symbol and making endless excuses for Hitler. 64
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:34 | # Exactly, he allied with some Slavs and not with others. He wasn’t uniformly against all Slavs as you insinuate. Just by ‘coincidence’ he was only against the Slavs directly to his East, who had land that he wanted.
That’s my point.
You think that are right about Hitler because you are a German American? Drum. You haven’t read the post and I am not interested in what you have to say either. 65
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:36 | # Just by ‘coincidence’ he was only against the Slavs directly to his East, who had land that he wanted. 66
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 23:48 | # Because Drum is a German American we are supposed to agree that the Nazi in-group / out-group distinction was perfect and that their programmatic application of that view was flawless. Because Drum is German American, he knows (whereas, according to him, I only present arguments that are purely biased and therefore to be dismissed entirely, even though he will not address the issues). 67
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:08 | # Now, let me address the matter again, son. Is there any particular issue on the post that you would like to dispute? Or do you just want to try to assert that the swastika is a worthwhile emblem because you say so as a German American, and that what I am saying is wrong because I am an Italian/Polish American? The only reason to reject the swastika is Jewish progadanda? are you kidding me? 68
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:11 | # ................ Necessary complexity is handled by dropping that ascription and adding this paragraph about his chief opponent’s view.
69
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:41 | # ............. “People of the same blood, should be in the same Reich. The German people will have no right to engage in a colonial policy until they shall have brought all their children together in one state. When the territory of the Reich embraces all the Germans and finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise from the need of the people to acquire foreign territory.” “The plow is then the sword and the tears of war shall produce the daily bread for the generations to come.” - Hitler
Until now, I had heard and read only parts of Mein Kampf. While he has some dazzling political insights, I am not impressed by him philosophically. In fact, it becomes evident how he brought about such disaster. As I have suspected, his myopia for work and militarism is in need of a massive dose of Aristotle. His scientism in need of deep ecology. etc. Still, given his limited perspective of German military glory, its “necessary” imperialism, it would have been unthinkable for him to consider accepting Poland retaking by military force and endorsement of the Treaty of Versailles, its ancient capital of Poznan after three generations absence. Nevertheless, it is a shame that Hitler was of such a purview as to not be able to look beyond, into compensation elsewhere, from such the relatively small concessions of Poznan, Gniezno, Wrzesnia, Lezno, Bydgoszcz (where it seems, agitation by Germans in defiance of the treaty of Versailles commenced almost immediately: hence the decades long genesis of conflict there) and Torun. With the possible exception of Torun, more of a logistical concession, these places once taken by German imperialism, and retaken by Poland, were relatively small concessions to peace, while Germany/Prussia was still huge - in addition to entitled habitation in Danzig, it encompassed Breslau, almost all of Silesia, Pomerania and Konigsberg. I mention this to acknowledge that concessions to Polish nationhood, such as Poznan, would have been extremely difficult for even a normal German leader, let alone one such as Hitler, for whom, given his personality, it would have been impossible. Thus came propaganda of German civilians being killed in the tens of thousands in “the corridor.” For his “worldview”, he did stab Poland in the back after it had thwarted the Red Army which was on its way to Berlin. .......... 70
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 20:05 | # Hopefully the spate of comments on Nazism and Poland does not have to do with the dearth of comments of late. I will curtail such comments. Nevertheless, a better understanding of the regional history probably wouldn’t hurt, such as this largely forgotten uprising: it was on this day in 1918 that the Greater Poland uprising began. Poznan and other cities in the region were retaken from Prussian rule. 71
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:27 | # When the Germans successfully recaptured Danzig and the Poles, having surrendered quicker than a Coon can carjack a Cadillac, set upon their Jewish oppressors, the Teutonic conquerors found themselves in the unexpected role of peacemakers. The Germans tried, with some success, to prevent the Poles from killing the Semitic predators and parasites (tautologically speaking) and saved a considerable number of lives which were, in my not so humble opinion, not worth saving. 72
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:41 | # Posted by Al Ross on December 28, 2013, 06:27 AM | # When the Germans successfully recaptured Danzig
Its original incarnation was some kind of Germanic people (Ruthian, Goth, something like that) but there were times, including during its heyday, when it was under Polish rule. “and the Poles, having surrendered quicker than a Coon can carjack a Cadillac” The Germans were allowed to dock a ship and then proceeded by sneak attack to bomb Polish defenses. Even the Nazis acknowledged that the Poles fought valiantly at Westerplatte. “, set upon their Jewish oppressors,” I don’t know the particulars, but the Poles and Jews are different peoples, who may well have been at odds in the Gdansk area as they were in other places. Personally, I do not care if they were. “the Teutonic conquerors” If I had created the war machine that the Nazis did, and deployed it aggressively against neighboring European states, I would not brag about it. Nor would I brag about the Teutonic Knights. Normal people are glad that they were defeated. “found themselves in the unexpected role of peacemakers.” The good old peace and Jew loving Nazis, I know. “The Germans tried, with some success, to prevent the Poles from killing the Semitic predators and parasites (tautologically speaking) and saved a considerable number of lives which were, in my not so humble opinion, not worth saving.” Maybe the Nazis should have minded their own goddamn business then. And rather than acting like a jealous spinster aunts every time Poland gets 20 years of independence, or acing like Hitler did, like a spoiled child who lost one of his pile of toys that his uncle Friedrich stole for him, specifically, aggrandized territories, he could have been satisfied with their already extant and gargantuan living spaces. 73
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:35 | # ................ blutundboden said: March 3, 2014 at 4:18 am “ Not to mention that the Soviets would have sooner or later invaded Poland ANYHOW.” Daniels said in response:They already had and Poland already fought them. blutunboden: “German Invasion of Poland 1 September – 6 October 1939 No one here is talking about the Polish-Soviet War, fucking retard. daniels says: blutundboden says: That’s where Renegade would give this a-hole the last word, whereas I would have added: Sure, blutundboden (retard), the context is “lousy” when it doesn’t suit your idealization of Hitler and the Nazis, a view of history that suited them - that bullshit is surely getting old. This whole idiotic Pat Buchanatard view of “the unnecessary war” frames matters after the fact, where Poland’s staunch anti-Soviet position had been ignored and its sovereignty violated by Nazi Germany. 74
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:16 | # Konig The Skull Crusher says: Ugh… is anyone else absolutely sick to the fucking teeth of this daniels guy and his mostly singular agenda yet? FOR FUCK’S SAKE PLEASE STOP!!!!! I don’t have a singular agenda (except perhaps to unify native European advocacy into a cooperative, non-conflictual mode). However, it is a highly relevant topic to redress: Hitler’s over-emphasis on life as “struggle” which takes human life as it actually is, mostly cooperative, and replaces it with excuse for inter-European war. It is probably not a coincidence that the same over-emphasis on war is inherent in Odinism (If you are not constantly willing to risk your life in war then you are a coward; whereas if you do, you will have a maiden in valhala: that’s bullocks worthy of Islam
75
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 24 Mar 2014 06:43 | # ...// * It matters because they are gaining popular attention - most recently with this “White Man March*” - representing themselves as White Nationalists. White nationalism would not only represent a German imperialist view. * While I wish these demonstrations well inasmuch as they promote the interests of White people, I wonder if that ambiguous plan (a bit of an oxymoron) gained assent largely because it is coming from a pro-Hitler platform (which again, might work in America, where Whites are largely German and Irish). Whereas, for example, the Euro DNA Nation that I would promote (quite arguably a better, more important idea than the White Man March - though not in conflict and entirely comparable) is hard to get off the ground even though it is concerned to ensure the well being of all European peoples.
Do you notice the way this Markus guy pretty much only cares about Germany? They were the only victims, they did nothing wrong. Is it not highly predictable where this guy is going? He goes on about how World War II did not end - he wants to fight the same war over again - that’s how horrifically narrow and dangerous to White interests that he is. He wants history to begin just as Hitler saw fit, after Friedrich the Great’s aggrandisement, if not the Teutonic Knights. He wants people to think it was all about a dispute over Gdansk/ Danzig, as if nobody was aware that Hilter had vast designs on the east as evinced in his talks about a German resort in Crimea in Table Talk, but already more than clear in Mein Kamf - the kind of vicious German imperialism that Markus expresses. Guys like this are trying to make it seem like a clear matter that Nazi Germany was simply acting righteously. Markus asks “when will Poland pay?” as if they did not pay with enough lives. After that he began reeling off viciously defaming attributions to Poles, while one of his fellow Nazis brought out this litany of hard core and highly dishonest anti-Polish propaganda. Let me be clear, I would love for Poles and all of Europe to help one another - that is the way we should pay each other for a fratricidal war in which Germans were hardly perfectly innocent. But of which all are innocent now. Why do I bring this up again? Because he says the war is not over. Do you realize how dangerous what you are doing in unequivocally normalizing this guy, Kyle? But coming back to the broader view, after the treaty of Versailles, Danzig was under the league of nations; the two biggest cites that Germany lost outright, with the balance of historical grievance, were Bromberg and Thorn. In sum total, we are not talking about much, but because Hitler was using the pretext of these small cities and areas; and without the credible will to work out a better, non-military resolution to concerns of Germans living outside of then German bounds, he initiated the most catastrophic war that Europe has ever known. And it was a pretext. Everyone knew that Nazi Germany was not going to stop there. Poland clearly saw this as a strategic matter wherein Hitler obviously could not be trusted to stop (it was abundantly clear after Czechoslovakia – he made similar claims about Germans being persecuted there). After the invasion of World War II, he killed Poles who fought to take back their ancient capital of Poznan after World War I (I recently visited the memorium). He was clearly auguring to deprive Poland of the nation they’d just regained after fighting to take it back after 120 years of German aggrandisement. He would kill anybody who stood in his way and everyone was sick of German pugnaciousness. And they are going to get sick of the unanimity of Nazi rhetoric which amounts to a mirror image of Jewish rhetoric. “Oh, the Germans did not crucify nuns when they invaded Belgium in World War One.” No, they just shot civilians in the hundreds, destroyed some of the most beautiful ancient architecture in Leuven while burning its library and ancient books along with it. And what the hell were they doing in Belgium anyway? In the other direction, we should just respect Germany’s “tradition” for invading Eastward. It’s just their “custom.” ............ As for the great “holocaust revelation”: What White, with any racial consciousness, could not see right from the beginning - in the seventies when its heavy promotion was initiated - that the Jews had an exaggerated concern for themselves and their lives, while European lives were seen as a tangential concern? In essence, this stuff matters little to normal Whites concerned about what matters now and in the future for all White people. Nobody alive now owes Jews anything for WWII, true or not. It would matter primarily to one who cares to spin reverse rhetoric and to fight World War II again, just as Hitler wanted to fight World War I again. It was within Hitler’s power to not fight that war – his reasoning for war was not nearly as just and honest as the current fad in WN takes it to be and the blame on balance stands with him. Kyle, if you’d like to discuss this, I’m quite willing. 76
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:00 | # /. From Hitler’s table talk August 1-2, 1941 Context: Luftwaffe had been striking at Moscow for a week, the Wehrmacht pushed against Smolensk on the 28th of July. Hitler: “We are going to have a continent to rule. When that happens, the different positions of the sun will bar us from uniformity. In many places we shall have to control immense regions with a handful of men. Thus, the police there will have a to be constantly on the alert ...what a chance for men from the party. We must pay the price for our experiences of course, mistakes are inevitable. But what difference does it make if in ten years I can be told that Danzig, Alsace and Lorraine our now German. What will it matter then if it can be added that three or four mistakes that have been made at Colbart and five or six at other places; lets take the responsibility for these mistakes and save the provinces; in ten years we will have formed an elite of whom we know that we can count on them whenever there are new difficulties to master. We will produce from it all a new breed of man, a race of rulers; a breed of Viceroys. Of course there will be no question of using men like that in the West. World History knows three battles of annihilation: Cannae, Sedan and Tannenberg
and those which we are now fighting in the East All others were battles of pursuit.” 77
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 17:01 | # As I might anticipate the contention that Hitler was speaking of battles “within Poland” not the annihilation of its existence as a nation, I would then refer to: “On August 22, 1939, just before the invasion of Poland, Hitler gave explicit permission to his commanders to kill “without pity or mercy, all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language
Post a comment:
Next entry: A note to James and Graham
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:48. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 10:46. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 09:27. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:48. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:01. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:50. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:49. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:15. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 15:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 10:43. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 23:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 13:01. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:56. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:54. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 22:58. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 22:27. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 20:02. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 13:22. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 13:41. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:16. (View) |
An execution of Poles by an Einsatzgruppe in Leszno, October 1939
Cuzon Line - Poles living to the East had their property taken and were moved West after World War II.
Another view of L’viv
L’viv’s 
Torun (German, Thorn) a tough loss for Germany.
Germans killed by Poles in Bydgoszcz
Nazi response against Poles in Bydgoszcz
Nazi response against Poles in Bydgoszcz
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:53 | #
In truth I grew up identifying mostly as an Italian American. My father bitterly resented Roosevelt for reneging on his promise not to send American boys in harms way. Though he tried to stay out, they took him eventually, and he served as a sergeant in charge of Japanese prisoner’s of war.
Anyway, I had cousins in Mussolini’s army; I suppose I might have elected to sympathize with the Axis Powers; but I have always preferred not to.